BEFORETHE
POSTAL RATE COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20266-0001
RECEIVEL)
h
22
4 57 PI ‘I)/
POST11 H.ITT ,;>i;i..:‘-;p,,
0 Fii Ci’ 1:i- 7~,1. j ,-;cyii:~!i’>,
POSTALRATEANDFEECHANGES,2001
j
Docket No. R2001-1
COMMENTS OF THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE AND PROPOSED
ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
Presiding Officer’s Ruling R2001-l/l
(POR 1) circulated a proposed hearing
schedule for the instant docket and sought comments prior to the prehearing
conference scheduled for October 25,200l.
In the following, the Postal Service makes
several observations regarding the proposed schedule, and respectfully proposes an
alternative schedule that it believes would further enhance the opportunity to achieve
expedition.
The Postal Service requested expedition when it filed its Request on September
24,200l.l
To date, only one party, Postcom, has commented.2 While not opposing the
request in principle, Postcom could think of only one change to expedite proceedings,
namely, shortening the time for the Postal Service to respond to interrogatories. Yet,
Postcom expressed skepticism that even this measure would be effective, and
concluded that expectations of greater than usual speed in the litigation were
&realistic.
’ United States Postal Senrice Request for Expedition, Docket No. R2001-1 (Sept. 24,
2001)
’ Postcom Response to the United States Postal Service Request for Expedition, Docket
No. R2001-1 (Oct. 11,200l)
2
POR 1 described its proposed schedule as “intended to balance the Postal
Service’s desire for expedition and participants’ need for sufficient time to fully
understand the Service’s request.” It did not elaborate or explain how the specific
elements of the schedule would meet this overall objective. The schedule’s principal
distinguishing feature consists of a novel bifurcation of discovery and hearfngs directed
at the Postal Service’s direct case. Under this proposal, Postal Service testimony would
be divided into two categories, “testimony giving rise to complex discovery or procedural
disputes” (complex testimony), and all other testimony (simple testimony). POR 1
stated that, “for the schedule to operate successfully, Postal Service witnesses must be
available during both hearing sessions.” The determination of which testimony would
fall into which category, for purposes of terminating discovery and scheduling hearings,
would be made after the Postal Service filed its report on the availability of witnesses
(November 13 under the proposed schedule). At that point, discovery against the
simple testimony would have until November 26 to conclude. Discovery against the
complex testimony would be allowed approximately two more weeks to conclude (about
four weeks from the Postal Service’s report on availability). POR 1 does not explain
what substantive or other criteria would be used to determine whether testimony is of
sufficient complexity to place it in one category or another.
In most other respects, the proposed schedule appears to align fairly closely to
the historical pattern of procedural deadlines established in prior rate cases since 1980.
Comparing it to Docket No. 2000-1, the proposed schedule appears to allow less time
for filing rebuttal testimony, after the scheduled end of hearings on the intervenors’
direct cases. In Docket No. R2000-1, however, the original date for filing rebuttal was
3
deferred in order to provide more time to incorporate rebuttal to updated test year
forecasts, which were required by the Commission’s decision to create a new base year
founded on the PY 1999 Cost and Revenue Analysis.3 The original schedule
established at the beginning of Docket No. R2000-1 provided the same 10 days
between the end of intervenor hearings and the filing of rebuttal testimony, as the
proposed schedule provides here.,
The Postal Service believes that there are more opportunities to achieve
expedition than are reflected in the proposed schedule, or in Postcom’s suggestion that
expedition be accomplished by establishing shorter deadlines for discovery responses
from the Postal Service. Given the other elements of the proposed schedule, the
bifurcation of hearings on the Postal Service’s direct case conceivably could be justified
by the awkward positioning of the December-January holidays, in relation to the timing
of the Postal Service’s Request. In itself, however, the proposed bifurcation does not
appear to facilitate the objective of expedition. Furthermore, the bifurcation of discovery
expands the burden on the Postal Service. The November 26 deadline for discovery
against the simple testimony conforms to the historical average of discovery periods for
the Postal Service’s direct case. The December 10 discovery deadline for the complex
testimony, however, expands the historical average by about two weeks. While the
discovery period was also expanded about one week in Docket No. R2000-1 (to 70
days), the proposed schedule here extends the deadline another full week, for the most
complex testimony in the Postal Service’s direct case. Furthermore, the failure to make
’ Presiding Officer Ruling Revising the Procedural Schedule to Accommodate Actual FY
1999 CRA Cost Data, No. R2000-l/71, Docket No. R2000-1 (May 26,200O).
4
clear what standards would be applied, combined with the relatively late determination
(after November 13), would seem to further complicate the schedule.
More significantly, POR 1 does not explain what’degree of expedition might be
expected, if any. Measured from the filing of reply briefs (May 23 in the proposed
schedule), the proposed schedule allows 62 days for the Commission to analyze the
record and write an opinion. That calculation assumes no expedition, but rather a 1Omonth schedule. Compared to omnibus rate cases since 1980, this is only a few days
more than the average amount of time taken, after reply briefs, to issue a
Recommended Decision. If one were to assume that only a two-week acceleration of
the Recommended Decision were sought, the Commission would be left with 48 days
after reply briefs.
The Postal Service is therefore proposing an alternative schedule (attached) that
it believes represents a more streamlined and less complicated approach to the same
objective, but that would produce significantly greater expedition (see Comparison of
Schedules, attached). Rather than increasing the time for discovery against the Postal
Service, the attached alternative would provide for a uniform period of approximately
two months of discovery applicable to all testimony. This amount of time is consistent
with the historical average for discovery against the Postal Service.’ Rather than
requiring hearings to be bifurcated according to unspecified criteria, the alternative
schedule would provide three weeks of uninterrupted hearings concluding on December
‘The reasonableness of a two-month discovery period is reinforced in the instant case,
since interveners appear to have gotten a quick start on discovery. As of today, the
Postal Service will have answered about 200 interrogatories (not counting multiple
(continued...)
5
21, before Christmas. Rather than hearings resuming one day after the New Years’
holiday, hearings under the alternative schedule would not resume again until late
February. Furthermore, rather than having 14 days following the end of hearings on the
Postal Service’s direct case to prepare and file testimony, intervernors would have 24
days, including 13 days following New Years. The period for discovery against
intervenors would correspond to the 28 days afforded under the proposed schedule in
POR 1. Hearings on intervenor cases would begin 15 days after the end of discovery,
rather than 19 days, as proposed in POR 1. Furthermore 14 work days, rather than 15,
have been set aside for intervenor hearings. After that, the intervals proposed in the
alternative schedule track those in the POR 1 schedule. Finally, assuming that a
Recommended Decision were issued on June 24, a full month prior to the statutory
deadline of July 24, the Commission would have nearly eight weeks (53 days), after the
filing of reply briefs, to analyze the record, write an opinion, and issue its Recommended
Decision.
(continued.. .)
parts), while at a similar point in time during Docket No. R2000-1, the Postal Service
had answered fewer than half as many interrogatories.
6
Respectfully submitted,
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
By its attorney:
Chief Counsel, Ratemaking
475 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20280-l 137
(202) 268-268-2989, Fax -6402
October 22,200l
7
ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURAL SCHEDULE
September 24,200l
Postal Service Request filed
October 25,200l
Prehearing Conference
Nobember 13.2001
Identify expected amount of oral cross-examination.
Report on the availability of witnesses.
November 23‘2001
Completion of discovery on the Postal Service’s direct
case
December 3 - 21,200l
Hearings for cross-examination of the Postal
Service’s direct case
.
January 14,2002
Filing of the case-in-chief of each participant,
including rebuttal to the Postal Service
February 11,2002
Identify expected amount of oral cross-examination.
Report on the availability of witnesses.
February 11,2002
Completion of discovery directed to intervenors and
the OCA
February 26 - March 15,2002
Evidentiary hearings on the cases-in-chief of
interveners and the OCA
March 6,2002
Completion of discovery directed to the Postal
Service
March 25,2002
Filing of evidence in rebuttal to the cases-in-chief of
participants other than the Postal Service)
April 3 - 12,2002
Hearings on rebuttal to participants’ direct evidence
April 22,2002
Filing of initial briefs
May 2,2002
Filing of reply briefs
May 6 - 7,2002
Oral argument (if requested)
8
COMPARISON OF SCHEDULES
(R2000-I, Proposed R2001-1, Alternative R2001-1)
Stage
R2000-1
Filing
l-12-2000
Prehearing
Conference
2-16-2000
35 days
after filing
Completion
of Discovery
- USPS
3-23-2000
70 days
after filing
g-24-2001
31 days
after filing
1o-25-01
60 days
after filing
1l-26-01
Completion
of Discovery
- USPS
(simple)
---I=
Completion
of Discovery
- USPS
(complex)
---I=-
4-1 l-2000
Hearings
USPS Direct
Case begin
10 days
after end
of
I
12-l 3-01
Hearings
USPS Direct
Case
g$4
9
Hearings
end
-T-
17 davs
I
5-g-2000
16 days
after start
of
hearings
(15
hearing
days)
9
2-20-01
dearings
snd (simple)
7 days
after start
Qf
hearings
f;;tzl@
hearlngs)
Hearings
USPS Direct
Case
l-2-02
23 days
efter end
of
dlscovew
Hearings
USPS Direct
Case
Ndv14
l-16-02
14 days
after start
of
hearings
[;;W&O
Earlngs)
Intervenors’
Cases Filed
5-22-2000
1,3 days
after end
of
hearlngs
l-30-02
41 days
after end
of
hearings
yw&
l-14-02
24 days
after end
of
hearings
2-1 l-02
28 days
after filing
testimony
after end
of
hearings
(comfilex)
lntervenors
cases
(rebuttal to
Raymond
and Baron)
filed
5-30-2000
21 days
after end
of
hearings
Completion
of Discovery
against
lntervenors
6-19-2000
28 days
after flllng
testimony
2-27-02
26 days
after filing
testlmony
10
Hearings on
Interveners’
Direct
Cases begin
r-6-2000
Basic
Update (FY
1999 CFtA
and test
year
sstimates)
due
r-7-2000
Hearings
snd
‘-20-2000
Hearings on
testimony
submitted by
USPS on
NOI No. 3
7-21-2000
Test year
updates
beyond
basic
r-21-2000
Technical
conferences
on revised
TY forecasts
7-26-2000
:o 7-28!OOO
Completion
of Discovery
Against
USPS
7-31-2000
17 days
after end
bf
iiscovery
I4 days
rfter start
Jf
iearings
l-5-02
18 days
after Start
of
hearlngs
(15 days
of
i hearings)
!-26-02
I5 days
after end
Df
discovery
s-15-02
17 days
efter start
of
hearings
(14 days
of
hearings)
3-6-02
163 days
from filing
-r
200 days
from filing
---IS-27-02
164 days
from filing
11
12
Reply Briefs
g-22-2000
Oral
Argument
None
6 days
after Initial
brlefs filed
1 l-132000
10 days
after initial
brlefs filed
52 days
after reply
briefs filed
5-2-02
10 days
after
Initial
briefs
filed
5-6,7-02
6-4-02 to
6-5-02
PRC
Recommend
ed Decision
(expedited)
PRC
Recommend
ed Decision
5-23-02
7-1 O-02 (9
M months)
48 days
after reply
briefs filed
6-24-02 (9
months)
63 days
after reply
briefs
filed
7-24-02
(10
months)
62 days
after reply
briefs filed
7-24-02
(10
months)
63 days
after reply
briefs
filed
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing document upon all
participants of record in this proceeding in accordance with section i2 of the Rules of
Practice.
476 L’Enfant Plaza West, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20260-l 137
October 22,200l